Abstract
This paper explores Ogyū Sorai’s 荻生徂徠 (1666–1728) thinking on the most sensational and controversial incident of eighteenth-century Japan, and perhaps the most well-known in all Japanese history, the forty-seven rōnin incident of 1701–1703. Viewed in relation to his lifework, Sorai’s views on the incident are significant insofar as they reveal the extent to which his philosophical thinking was occasionally shaped decisively by neither ancient Chinese nor later Confucian texts, Neo- or otherwise, but instead by formative life-experiences he had as a youth living in exile. No doubt, Confucian and Neo-Confucian notions, which Sorai knew in-depth, helped him filter, epistemologically, events, issues, and most importantly what he understood to be righteous and just behaviour in a polity. Yet ironically enough, Sorai’s thinking on the rōnin incident shows that however philosophically erudite, cosmopolitan, and urbane he was as an intellectual, his appraisals of things sometimes harked back to rural experiences he had early on with some of the most primitive and foundational expressions of human agency, civilization, and socio-political ethics in early-eighteenth century Japan. In the process, Sorai’s essay reveals, through its later resonance with some Meiji thought, how his views on those same primitive expressions remained relevant even in modern contexts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Maruyama’s work, Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū 日本政治思想史研究 (Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1952), was translated into English by Mikiso Hane as Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), and into French by Jacque Joly as Essais sur l’histoire de la pensée politique au Japon (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1996). Joly’s translation, rendered into English as Studies on the History of Japanese Political Thought, is the more accurate. Rather than intellectual history, Maruyama’s focus is on the history of political thought; also, rather than the Tokugawa period, the analyses address modern times as well. The essays comprising the volume were first published in Kokka gakkai zasshi 国家学会雑誌, between 1940 and 1944.
- 2.
Sorai traced his method, fully evident in his Discerning the Way (Bendō 辨道) and Discerning Names (Benmei 辨名) , to the Ming dynasty writings of Li Panlong 李攀龍 (1514-1570) and Wang Shizhen 王世貞 (1526-1590), who in turn had earlier advocated a return to ancient words and phrases (guwencixue 古文辭學). With Li and Wang, however, “ancient words and phrases” referred to the writings of the Han and Tang dynasties, not to the allegedly ancient classics of the Zhou dynasty. Also, for Li and Wang, the return was primarily stylistic in nature, not a profoundly philosophical one. Sorai’s return to ancient words and phrases was both literary and most importantly, philosophical in nature.
- 3.
References to the “early kings” (xian wang 先王 ) appear in the Book of Poetry (Shijing 詩経) six times, including one poem, “Tian Bao 天保,” which asks how debauched rulers might expect to succeed without extensively studying the early kings. In the Book of History (Shujing 書経 ), xian wang appears forty-two times in thirty-two paragraphs, beginning with the “Books of the Xia” (Xia shu 夏書) and the justification of the impending Shang 商 conquest of the Xia 夏 dynasty. There, the early kings referred largely to the early kings of the Xia dynasty. They are described as having been attentive to the warnings of heaven (tian 天), makers and recipients of sacrifices, concerned with the foundations of social unity, founders of states, compassionate to those distressed and in suffering, and devoted to the cultivation of virtue (de 徳). Later rulers were advised to follow their models.
- 4.
References to “the Sages” (shengren 聖人) only appear twice in the Book of Poetry, and not once in the Book of History. Sagacity as an attribute (sheng 聖) does occur twenty-two times in the History, typically as a characteristic of exemplary rulers. In the Book of Changes (Yijing 易経) , however, “the Sages” (shengren) appears thirty-eight times in twenty-two paragraphs. Therein they are described as masters of action and inaction, and as the crucial formulators of concepts and ideas that enable others to comprehend things. By shaping the understandings of humanity, the Sages provided for harmony in the world below heaven.
- 5.
Yao is the first ruler described in the Book of History. He was elevated by the people around him as their ruler due to his virtues, not military conquest or claims of divine appointment. Yao later turned authority over to Shun, the second ruler described in the History. Shun ruled wisely, and eventually turned governance over to Yu, the third major ruler of the History. Yu founded the Xia dynasty, perhaps the most remote in Chinese antiquity (though its authenticity remains questionable). Tang overthrew the Xia dynasty and founded the Shang, claiming – according to the History – to have received the decree of heaven in doing so. Wen, Wu, and the Duke of Zhou presided over the end of the Shang and the beginning of the Zhou dynasty. Sorai typically cites these figures as Sages, and sometime includes other figures as well such as the Yellow Emperor, the Divine Farmer, and Fu Xi, the supposed inventor of writing. Sorai does not readily acknowledge Confucius, however, as having been a Sage. He denies such status because Confucius claimed to be a “transmitter” (shu 述) rather than a “creator” (zuo 作) of culture.
- 6.
The term “founder” (zuo zhe 作者 sakusha ) appears in the Analects (Lunyu 論語 Rongo) of Confucius (7/1), but there in reference to “worthies” rather than “Sages.” The Book of Rites (Liji 禮記 Raiki) chapter, “Records of Music” (Yue ji 樂記), does, however, state, “Those who founded (things) are called Sages” (zuo zhe zhi wei sheng 作者之謂聖).
- 7.
See Tahara Tsuguo, Akō shijūroku shi ron, pp. 62–63, for a listing of major texts in the vendetta dates, and their dates. Tahara notes that all of the discussions occurred after the vendetta was done.
- 8.
For example, Ishii Shirō 石井紫郎, ed., Kinsei buke shisō 近世武家思想, NST Vol. 27 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1974), does not include the Giritsusho , but does present “Essay on the Forty-Seven Samurai” (Shijūshichi shi no koto o ron zu 四十七士の事を論ず), as Sorai’s authentic contribution to the rōnin debates.
- 9.
Yoshikawa’s “Sorai gakuan” 徂徠学案, in Ogyū Sorai , Yoshikawa Kōjirō et al., eds, p. 644, states that the copy of the Sorai-shū shūi that Yoshikawa cites is a manuscript (shahon) housed at Hiroshima University. Hiraishi Naoaki 平石直昭 has edited a modern edition, published as Sorai-shū, Sorai-shū shūi 徂徠集・徂徠集拾遺, Kinsei Juka Bunshū Shūsei vol. 3.
- 10.
Lidin, Olof, Ogyū Sorai’s Discourse on Government (Seidan ), p. 4. Lidin mentions that Sorai referred to his early experiences in Kazusa in all four volumes comprising the Seidan .
- 11.
Waseda University’s 1791 (Kansei 3) edition of the Sorai-shū (Osaka: Bunkindō), fascicle 12, pp. 12b–15a. (This edition can be consulted through the homepage of Waseda University Library.)
- 12.
The words that Sorai uses to convey “private resentment” (shitai 私懟 C: si dui), appear individually in the Classic of Poetry. In characterizing Asano Naganori’s feelings via these ancient terms, Sorai was unique in retellings of the incident, and faithful to his emerging emphasis on the use of ancient words and phrases. He found the latter more authentically meaningful than words and expressions of more recent vintage.
- 13.
For a contrary view, see James McMullen, “Confucian Perspectives on the Akō Revenge: Law and Moral Agency,” Monumenta Nipponica, 58:3 (2003), pp. 1, 6–7, 22. McMullen questions the authenticity of Sorai’s “Essay on the Forty-Seven Samurai Incident,” noting how it was omitted from the 1740 publication of Sorai’s Collected Works. Like Maruyama, he accepts the Giritsusho , without, however, addressing the fact that the Giritsusho as we know it today traces to an obscure text that was only transmitted in the Hosokawa family in remote Kumamoto domain.
Bibliography
Asami Keisai 浅見絅斎. 1974. “Shijūrokushi ron” 四十六士論. In Ishii Shirō 石井紫郎, ed. Kinsei buke shisō 近世武家思想. NST, vol. 27. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Dazai Shundai 太宰春台. 1974. “Akō shijuroku shi ron” 赤穂四十六士論. In Ishii Shirō, ed. Kinsei buke shisō. NST, vol. 27. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Fukuzawa Yukichi 福澤諭吉. 1959. Gakumon no susume 学問のすゝめ. In Fukuzawa Yukichi zenshū 福澤諭吉全集, vol. 3. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Hayashi Hōkō 林鳳岡. 1974. Fukushū ron 復讐論. In Ishii Shirō, ed. Kinsei buke shisō. NST, vol. 27. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Ishii Shirō 石井紫郎, ed. 1974. Kinsei buke shisō 近世武家思想. NST, vol. 27. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Lidin, Olof G. 1999. Ogyū Sorai’s Discourse on Government (Seidan): An Annotated Translation. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Maruyama Masao 丸山眞男. 1952. Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū 日本政治思想史研究. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai.
Maruyama, Masao. 1974. Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan. Trans. Hane Mikiso. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McMullen, James. 2003. “Confucian Perspectives on the Akō Revenge: Law and Moral Agency.” Monumenta Nipponica 58:3.
Muro Kyūsō 室鳩巣. 1974. Akō gijin roku 赤穂義人録. In Ishii Shirō, ed. Kinsei buke shisō 近世武家思想. NST, vol. 27. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Nabeta Shōzan (Sanzen) 鍋田晶山 (三善). 1910–1911. Akō gijin sansho 赤穂義人纂書. 3 vols. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai.
Nienhauser, William H., editor. 2008. The Grand Scribe’s Records, Volume Three: The Memoirs of Han China, Part 1, by Ssu-ma Ch’ien. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ogawa Tamaki 小川環樹. 1975. Shiki retsuden 史記列伝, vol. 3. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Ogyū Sorai 荻生徂徠. 1791. Sorai-shū 徂徠集. Osaka: Bunkindō.
Ogyū Sorai. 1973a. Sorai-shū 徂徠集. In Yoshikawa Kōjirō 吉川幸次郎 et al., eds. Ogyū Sorai 荻生徂徠 (excerpts). NST, vol. 36. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Ogyū Sorai. 1973b. Seidan 政談. In Yoshikawa Kōjirō et al., eds. Ogyū Sorai. NST, vol. 36. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Ogyū Sorai. 1974. “Shijūshichishi no koto o ronzu” 論四十七士事. In Ishii Shirō, ed. Kinsei buke shisō. NST, vol. 27. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Satō Naokata 佐藤直方. 1974. Shijūrokunin no hikki 四十六人の筆記. In Ishii Shirō, ed. Kinsei buke shisō 近世武家思想. NST, vol. 27. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Shōtoku-taishi 聖徳太子. 1975. Kenpō jūshichijō 憲法十七条. In Ienaga Saburō 家永三郎 et al., eds. Shōtoku-taishi shū 聖徳太子集. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Sima Qian 司馬遷, “Tian Dan liezhuan” 田儋列傳, Shiji 史記, ch. 94.
Sorai Giritsusho 徂徠擬律書. 1911. In Akō gijin sansho 赤穂義人纂書, vol. 3. Nabeta Shōzan 鍋田晶山, ed. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai.
Tahara Tsuguo 田原嗣郎. 1978. Akō shijūrokushi ron: bakuhansei no seishin kōzō 赤穗四十六士論: 幕藩制の精神構造. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan.
Watson, Burton, translator. 1993. Records of the Grand Historian: Han Dynasty, Volume 1. New York: Columbia University Press.
Yoshikawa Kōjirō. 1973. “Sorai gakuan” 徂徠学案. In Yoshikawa Kōjirō et al., eds. Ogyū Sorai. NST, vol. 36. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, pp. 629–739.
Yoshikawa Kōjirō. 1983. Jinsai, Sorai, Norinaga: Three Classical Philologists of Mid-Tokugawa Japan. Tokyo: The Tōhō Gakkai.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tucker, J.A. (2019). Ogyū Sorai and the Forty-Seven Rōnin. In: BOOT, W., TAKAYAMA, D. (eds) Tetsugaku Companion to Ogyu Sorai. Tetsugaku Companions to Japanese Philosophy, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15475-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15475-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-15474-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-15475-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)